a reminder of what sparked the inquiry
This thread is relevant. Kant “demythologized” original sin… I refer to it as the first antagonism:
Yeah…it was a bit lame, I agree.
I had hoped they would get into how mind/body dissonance is produced and why it is so desirable, so seductive…that it is adopted by nihilism to linguistically set-up a firewall for the ego to shelter itself.
They only went into the linguistic lies Christians and Abrahamics use to remain true to their nihilistic delusions, when they dare to use them to make predictions…that always fail.
As always…there is no ‘thing’…so no thing-in-itself…there is only process - if patterned (ordered) it is converted (translated, reduce) to an abstraction, a thing - the thing is then whole, complete, singular, because dimensional possibilities have been eliminated when it was converted to a neural pulse - sensory input - and then into abstractions, or sensation, images etc.
Organic brains fabricate absolutes because this is the only way to process dynamic existence.
Like a photo reduces the phenomenon to a three-dimensional format by eliminating time, and shrinking all other perceptible dimensions into a representation.
A photograph of a tree is not the tree itself…it is a representation.
Your brain does the same, only it can also combine stored representations - images - or convert them to ana abstraction represented by a symbol, such as ‘tree’.
The concept can now refer to all phenomena with the same criteria.
So, one tree is now a repressentirons of all trees…or all phenomena that are similar - range - and then this one tree can be abstracted further into one…one tree, one dog, one rock…
The concept of one does not exist it is an abstraction referring to anything the mind can reduce down to a static abstraction.
Your concept of a one-god, is an absurdity.
It refers to an ideal man - Platonic - existing ni some ideal realm…then it is converted to a concept referring to all ideals.
Its description negates experienced reality.
If it were to become real - magically - and not a mental abstraction existing only in human brains in a vague form, it would negate existence.
In fact, your delusional beliefs that place this imaginary entity - ideal - in some alternate more real reality, is the nullification of existence as nothing more than illusory. a farce…you call it a testing phase…exposing your personal feelings towards existence. There are many like you, and you form a community of the daintified with existence, sharing your delusions that there’s a perfect existence, somewhere out there; if you are nice enough you can enjoy it forever and ever, the the price for enduring this false, dissatisfying existence.
I think it was you that I was talking to…you brought up something like Philosophy is about the way things are.
Take your tree example.
If one snapshot encompassed the whole tree, then there is no such thing as the seed that it used to be or the fruit that it will bear.
It’s like Meno_ said in the other thread.
It’s not a snapshot - it’s a motion picture.
When you say Philosophy is about the way things are you have to take the whole movie into consideration.
If you don’t, you’re going to be dealing with dissonance.
I woke up too early so pardon if I leapt between points without enough connectors.
Yes…snapshots in sequence make a motion picture.
No beginning…only process.
No end…only cycles.
There si nothing before, after, or outside existence.
Existence is.
Are you talking about Dasein/Time (as opposed to dasein/time)?
There is fruit, honeychil. Or the whirlwind.
Time is relative to the observer…metabolic rhythms determining processing speeds, and the interstation of solids, liquids, gases, energies…
All is ENERGY…at work, in process…moving/momentum.
Time mesures change.
There is no nothingness, no non-existence… only no-thing.
Thingness is the abstraction.
Man awakens to this state…is born into it…and he gradually learns how to direct himself in the fluctuating flow…like a man cast into a river with no shores…a surfer…
Ha!
Board = body
Surfer = mind.
intentional movement adjusting the board on the water = will.
You know what’s really cool, though?
Dasein-in-time
& that we’re (daseins-in-time) all in Dasein/Time (the above is vice versa)
I’m assuming 
We are temporal…there is no thing that is temporal…temporality is what we are.
Patterns.
Energy.
We are unities of patterns, struggling to maintain ourselves in the flux.
a mere breath… that will not return to him void
spirit…esprit…ανασα…breathe…
Do you get all your ideas from new-age platitudes written in Hallmark greetings cards?
I adapt to the herd…smothering myself with the feces it leaves in its wake.
I make myself stink like they do.
I vocalize like they do…because herd manimals are reliant to aural triggers, more than ocular.
So trying to walk it back then, huh. Smart move.
Let’s hope your daddy falls for it.
before your bespeckled eyes I am uniformly transparent. You Platonic idealist…
Correct.
And?
Never mind…
Carry on… :-"
The Good Baseline
From here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 1#p2897521
I agree with Peacegirl on this (using loose definition of preference) because, in order to know you’re wrong (factually, whether about moral facts, or otherwise) you have to have an established baseline/mean from which to depart.
After you depart, you either regret it or appreciate it, and then you start evaluating the baseline and how you departed in order to see if there is some standard by which to judge one baseline better (more truthful, good, or beautiful) than the other. Departing is good if it is departing to the best baseline. Always departing to the best baseline… it’s a thing… in a world of so many crappy baselines
Only someone who is free to depart from the best baseline, but always chooses it, is truly defined by/as the best baseline.
My C Theory of time makes good sense of coeternal crappy baselines subsumed (concurred—not affirmed) under the greatest baseline. Js.
In “the humanism of existentialism” Sartre says both, “we can never choose evil. We always choose the good…” (p. 293).
and:
301, 351 352, 355
“he has made himself a coward by his acts” (301)
“my shame is a confession” (351)
“Shame—like pride—is the apprehension of myself as a nature although that very nature escapes me…“ (352)
“I am ashamed of being born or I am astonished at it or I rejoice over it, or in attempting to get rid of my life I affirm that I live and I assume this life is bad. Thus in a certain sense I choose being born,” (355).
Ref: Existentialism/ Basic Writings” 2nd Ed., ed. Guignon/Pereboom, Hackett, 2001.
eenie meanie miney moe, catch a tiger by his toe, if he hollers:
a) let him go
b) make him pay $50 every day
My mama said to pick the very best one, and you are it,
but
I want to make my own choices
but
I don’t want to choose out of reactance against authority
but
I don’t want to be forced into choosing, but not choosing is a choice, so how am I free, if I’m not free to not choose?
but
how am I free if I’m NOT free to choose?
but
flies off into space on a de-liberation rocket
Some people are more satisfied with less satisfaction… more satisfaction feels like a set up for disappointment.
But that equivocates on satisfaction.
Regret… when you know you’re feeding the easy version of satisfaction… it starts before you even act.
Unless it’s the unavoidable regret born in hindsight when you learn of opportunities you didn’t see at the time.
But the opposite reaction can also occur at seeing missed opportunities in hindsight. Appreciation.
So if you know this is the greatest possible forum, why did you earlier express regret as if you weren’t choosing in accordance with your preferences? (Same reason God expresses regret.)
Answered my own question. Thanks.
All is well, unless Peacegirl’s own anathemic query is solved, where the baseline can ultimately recognize and reconcile the problem of it’s source, and whether such is the product of a transparent - transcendent , analyzable certainty, upon which a growing positive actualization- corresponds to more and more self determination.
Sans that, the negatively deconstructed , most probable outcome may or may not have resulted in more negatively determined, hit and miss type structural validity.
In- between states add an extra dimension of uncertainty to guess the overbearing source’s aim, and so, the learned-innate question will always factor in multiple levels of certainty. So to say all is learned is the l latent outline of what appears, with the substantial question remaining that implies a relative authentic imminent experience. One never knows for certain, since their sources define their variance, and can not express both, without the very fractured state into which such quiery further mystifies the search.